redeem_points

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral requirements (requires login, sufficient points) and output information (shows points required and cash value). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, pagination, or what happens if insufficient points exist - leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second adds critical prerequisites. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for even better front-loading.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and prerequisites well, but doesn't describe the return format, error handling, or how results are presented. Given the complexity of a hotel search with points redemption, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without providing additional parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches for hotels available for points redemption and shows points/cash values, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_hotels' tool, which appears to be a similar search function but presumably without the points redemption focus.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides some usage context by stating it requires being logged in with sufficient points, which is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the 'search_hotels' sibling tool or other alternatives, leaving the distinction implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.